Russia-EU relationship

It's a process. Trust the process.

And I'm not talking about their puppet leaderships of course.

Europe is obsessed with fear of Russia, by Gevorg Mirzayan for VZGLYAD. 07.12.2024.

European leaders believe that the more passive they are now in the Ukrainian crisis, the greater the chance that the Russians and Americans will come to an agreement behind their backs. That is why Europe, realizing the high probability of Trump coming to power and starting the process of diplomatic settlement of the Ukrainian crisis in 2025, is now raising the stakes. Believing that by doing so it increases its own importance.

Weak, spineless, worthless. Occupied by America and deprived of sovereignty.

This is exactly how the Russian political science and blogging community talks about Europe and its role in the world. They consider it an absolutely led player, led by spineless officials like the head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and the President of France Emmanuel Macron. There is no need to even talk about Chancellor Olaf Scholz (who, thanks to the former Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, was nicknamed “liver sausage”). At the same time – what a broad Russian soul – they even pity the Europeans. They hope that they will get rid of American influence and improve, and take the path of cooperation with common sense. Even the Russian foreign policy doctrine states that Moscow does not rule out the possibility of normalizing relations with the EU in the foreseeable future (unlike relations with the US, which are recognized as almost hopeless).

However, the broad Russian soul is doing Russia a disservice here. Europe is by no means weak, spineless or worthless. Moreover, today it takes a much tougher and more aggressive position towards Moscow and the war in Ukraine than the Americans. And it is tough not only in words – the European countries themselves, of their own free will, are scraping out their arsenals to send everything that moves and shoots to the Kyiv regime. They themselves are refusing any even half-hearted attempts to find a diplomatic solution to the problem (in particular, they have already disowned the shuttle diplomacy of the new President of the European Council, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban). They are firmly focused on inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia. And Donald Trump, if he wins the American elections, will not even need to force European officials to take on the main costs of the war – they will do it with pleasure.

And all because they are very afraid. They are afraid of Russia's victory in the war in Ukraine and the consequences that this victory will bring to the European Union. And this is not at all about the "Russian march on Warsaw and Berlin" with which the "hawks" are trying to scare the European people.

They are afraid of a hostile Russia. Everyone understands perfectly well that Russian citizens (not to be confused with ordinary people) are unlikely to forgive the Germans for tanks with crosses on their turrets, from which they killed Russian soldiers. The Czechs for their MLRS, striking peaceful Belgorod. The French for their SCALP, the British Storm Shadow. No one is going to take Berlin or Warsaw, but there is no longer any hope for any Russian help in the form of cheap gas (which made Europe rich) or a collective security system (protecting the Old World from threats from the south and southeast).

They are afraid of an attractive Russia. After Russia's victory, Moscow will certainly strengthen its ties with European non-systemic players - right and left, for whom the Russian policy of protecting conservative values ​​and national interests is a model. And the hour is not far off when Vladimir Putin - who personalises this policy - will become a model politician for that part of the European electorate that is tired of mindless political correctness and plush administrators who become presidents. And this means that politicians who cosplay Putin's image will win national elections.

Finally, they are simply afraid of being left alone. The growth of neo-isolationism in the United States, the shift of American attention to East Asia, the loss of control over the post-Soviet space due to the Russian victory – all this may lead to the United States reducing its interest in European affairs. They will shift to Europe not only the financing of the Ukrainian war, but also the containment of the post-war victorious Russia. And European leaders (especially within the framework of the EU mechanism) cannot and do not know how to make strategic decisions independently.

And to prevent all these misfortunes, European leaders are trying either to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, or – what is even better for them – to achieve a change of Russian power to the one that existed in the 90s. A power that builds relations with the EU on the principle of “whatever you want”. Yes, from the Russian point of view this is impossible – that time has long passed, and entire generations of Russians have sworn to themselves never to allow such humiliations again. But Europe is obsessed with fear, and fear forces them to cling to any, even the most illusory, opportunities to prevent what they fear.

Yes, some European politicians admit that Russia's victory is inevitable. But instead of trying to separately agree with Moscow on the post-war rules of the game (a logical behavior, in general, from the point of view of Russian experts), they are taking an increasingly "hawkish" position. They are even talking about sending troops into Ukraine.

And here too there is its own – European – logic, which is dictated by fear. Fear of being left outside the negotiating table.

European leaders believe that the more passive they are now in the Ukrainian crisis, the greater the chance that the Russians and Americans will come to an agreement behind their backs. That the US will ignore European interests – just as it ignored Saudi and Israeli ones during the peace deal with Iran under Barack Obama. That is why Europe, realizing the high probability of Trump coming to power and starting the process of diplomatic settlement of the Ukrainian crisis in 2025, is now raising the stakes. Believing that by doing so it increases its own importance.

And if someone thinks that Europe can be persuaded, convinced, explained and reassured – then no, it is extremely unlikely. A weak, spineless, worthless, but tremblingly afraid person does not hear arguments – even about the fact that his own behavior will lead to the materialisation of these fears.

https://vz.ru/opinions/2024/7/12/1276826.html

One on One with Russia: Europe Prepares for NATO's Departure, by Kirill Strelnikov for RiaNovosti. 07.19.2024.

"Turn off the lights, drain the water": indescribable turmoil and gnashing of teeth is heard in the transatlantic elites (they are also the so-called world government, they are also globalists, they are also the curators of the so-called US deep state).
Donald Trump's earlobe , flying at the speed of a bullet, has tipped the election scales so much that it is now absolutely clear to everyone: if Trump remains alive by the elections, his victory is guaranteed with a large margin. If earlier, with a difference in polls between the ex-president and the current US president of two to three percent, the Clinton-Kagan clan had a repeatedly tested version of "witchcraft" with ballots in reserve, then with Trump's obvious and indisputable advantage, this witchcraft is guaranteed to turn into mass unrest, threatening civil war.

In this regard, the current real owners of the White House are left with only one thing: to urgently look for a replacement for Biden (what if it works out) and start separating the steam from the armored train standing on the siding.

The decision on the first issue has already been made: yesterday, information appeared that the most prominent figures of the US Democratic Party began to openly call for changing the horse that had been driven into the river. In particular, former Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi called Joe Biden and said that, according to polls, he has no chance of winning, and that he "will destroy the Democrats' chances of winning in the House of Representatives with his stubbornness." The leader of the Democrats in the US Senate, Chuck Schumer, told Biden the same thing and asked him to withdraw his candidacy. However, Biden is stubborn (or rather, his "sitters"), and the chances of retaining power for the Deep Staters are also stubbornly melting away before our eyes.

As for the armoured train, it is heading to Europe. Just as Trump's obsession is the confrontation with China , the Clintons and Kagans have a direct confrontation with Russia, which they initiated in Ukraine . As Trump has repeatedly stated, and Republican vice-presidential candidate J.D. Vance confirmed yesterday, for European allies "the time for freebies has passed." Donald Trump himself named ending the conflict in Ukraine as one of the first points of his presidency. In turn, Ivo Daalder , head of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs , recently stated that "very soon Europe will have to rely solely on itself in the security sphere and not rely on the United States." This means that with the US's withdrawal from Europe, NATO will turn into Farinelli's castrate, which means that everything must be done to freeze the conflict between Europe and Russia in the current hot phase until the next presidential elections, where the Democrats will try to take revenge.

To achieve this, the departing NATO must be quickly replaced by a new, purely European NATO, where the Atlantists who escaped on an armored train will continue to rule.

Yesterday, the main Russophobe, former gynecologist and re-elected head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen made a loud statement: "Our work in the next five years will focus on building a genuine defense European Union." And if specifically, then the European Union (initially a political and economic union) is planned to be transformed into a military organization with a common defense fund, centralized planning, military production, intelligence, logistics, and so on - all in the image and likeness of NATO.

The new EuroNATO will be headed by a special commissioner of the EC for defense (this position did not exist before). In order to avoid any illusions about the "defensiveness" of the reborn EU , it is enough to name the previously announced candidates for the post of "Secretary General of EuroNATO", who are, as if selected, ardent Russophobes. The former Prime Minister of Estonia Kaja Kallas , the President of Romania Klaus Iohannis and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania Gabrielius Landsbergis were considered as the EU Defense Commissioner , but most likely this post will be occupied by a pathological and completely reckless hawk - the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Radoslaw Sikorski.

Given Ms. von der Leyen's statement that one of the central tasks of the new militarized EU will be "financial, political and military support for Ukraine" and "for as long as necessary," there is a feeling that Biden's current puppeteers are confident that even with the US leaving Europe, the conflict in Ukraine will successfully continue and harm Russia.

Nevertheless, paradoxically, the potential transformation of the European Union into a quasi-NATO most likely plays into the hands of the future US President Donald Trump. In his election program, the well-being of Europe is not reflected in the word "at all", that is, the US, with a cry of "Banzai!" will happily chop off from Europe, which is busy with war, its market, its production, its people, and its money. At the same time, Trump will be 100 percent satisfied with the fact that the European Union will fight Russia itself and with its own money, thanks to which he will be able to direct the freed up resources to his main goal - the future war with China.

As for the white and fluffy plan to end the Ukrainian conflict, the experienced player Trump has taken concrete precautions here: it is obvious that Trump's "peace plan" will be an ultimatum, in which, among other things, Russia will be required to be content with an incomplete fulfillment of the tasks of the SVO, and also (remember Trump's quirk) with 100% probability they will demand guarantees of Russia's non-participation in a potential conflict between China and Taiwan , which Trump is eager to unleash. If it works out, great, if not, let the Europeans continue the war themselves.

It is clear that many forces in Europe, secretly (and openly) hoping for a quick end to the conflict given the situation "on the ground" and Trump's statements about peace, are not very happy about this prospect. The voluntary surrender of national sovereignty and the political impotence of the elites of European states have led to the fact that they have already been skinned three times (and will soon be skinned a fourth), and now Europe will be on the threshold of a direct military clash with Russia - but without the help of the United States.

For decades, Russia has been calling on Europe to participate in a common Eurasian security system, but it seems that the Europeans are most drawn to political and economic masochism, which may now be joined by military masochism.

If someone is constantly asking to be finally flogged, then he should remember: it may turn out that the stop word will only be in Russian.

https://ria.ru/20240719/evropa-1960568642.html

Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin signed a decree changing the name of Europe Square, located in the Dorogomilovo district, to Eurasia Square.

https://www.irishsun.com/news/274468630/moscow-reveals-new-name-for-europe-square

The EU is a parasitic structure that is literally consuming the host.

Mario Draghi's conclusions on EU competitiveness is just another stuffing of Italian spaghetti Bolognese reasoning confusion without the mention of Brussels' geopolitical & economic confrontation with Mother Russia, as evidenced by today's social and economic trends.
This is, again, one more proof of Draghi's ostrich approach to contemporary realities (outright schizophrenia).

Europe underestimated its dependence on Russia, by Konstantin Kosachev, Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation, for VZGLYAD. 09.10.2024.

It turned out that European "strategists" categorically overestimated Russia's dependence on the EU and underestimated their own dependence on Russia. The author of Europe's long-term "economic miracle", its prosperity and progress was our country, at least to no lesser extent than the "Marshall Plan", only they preferred not to notice it.

Former Italian Prime Minister and long-time head of the European Central Bank Mario Draghi yesterday presented the outlines of a massive (400-page) report on the future of the European economy, entitled “EU Competitiveness: A Look Ahead.”

Before looking to the future, the authors described the present. And it, according to them, looks almost catastrophic. To understand the scale of the problem: in order to maintain the competitiveness of the EU (in fact, the EU itself) in the coming years, "minimum (!) additional (!) investments of 750-800 billion euros" will be needed, or about 4.4-4.7% of the EU's GDP in 2023. Compare: investments under the famous Marshall Plan from 1948 to 1951 amounted to 1-2% of GDP.

How did the European Union end up like this? Much has been said: the slowdown in global trade, competition from China and its closest ally, the United States. But the main thing is modest: “We have lost our main supplier of cheap energy – Russia.”

How did this happen? Is it some kind of spontaneous process, or is someone specifically responsible for this? Someone wanted to see NATO ships in Sevastopol and missiles in Kharkov so much that they decided: Moscow will not go anywhere and will “swallow” everything.

But it turned out that all these "strategists" categorically overestimated Russia's dependence on the EU and underestimated their own dependence on Russia. Our country was a co-author of the long-term "economic miracle" of Europe, its prosperity and progress, at least to no lesser extent than the "Marshall Plan", only they preferred not to notice it. But they repeatedly exaggerated their own merits and "steps towards" the USSR and Russia.

It just turned out that all these steps were maximally beneficial to the Europeans themselves, while the devaluation of Russia's role in their economy led to catastrophic consequences. "It turns out," as Draghi admits, that Europe cannot be competitive when it pays four times more for energy than its competitors, and when electricity prices are two to three times higher, and natural gas prices are four to five times higher than in the United States. It seems to me that this did not require a whole year of studying the problem, but rather entrusting it to first-year economics students. The question is different: why didn't you calculate this when you were drawn into the Ukrainian conflict at the behest of the United States and voluntarily refusing cheap resources?

Unfortunately, the report does not contain any reasonable conclusions. On the contrary: increase military spending, invest in the “green transition”, despite the even greater burden of expenses. What is needed, they say, is a real “foreign economic policy” to provide itself with resources – that is, “work” with third countries where there are minerals. And then, Draghi complains, half of the EU’s imports come from countries with which it “has no strategic ties”.

Or maybe it’s easier not to break strategic ties for the sake of geopolitical games?

Overall, the report suggests using economic and bureaucratic means to fix what politicians have done. But without eliminating the causes, even the "poultices" will not work.

https://vz.ru/opinions/2024/9/10/1286455.html

"The Russians are coming": Europe is preparing for suicide, by Elena Karaeva for RiaNovosti. 09.21.2024.

Do it once: almost two-thirds of the MEPs called for "an immediate lifting of all restrictions on Kyiv's strikes deep into Russia." With NATO missiles. With flight missions drawn up by NATO command. Do it twice: give the same Kyiv 35 billion euros stolen from frozen Russian assets. The President of the European Commission did this the day before. Do it three times: order eight systems of the latest air defense systems (the relevant French minister Lecornu) to "protect European borders." And the picture of collective suicidal behavior will sparkle with new colours.

The European Union is constantly raising the level of escalation with us, not always, apparently, realizing it. Maybe Brussels believes that "bast shoe Russians with sauerkraut stuck in their beards" are not able to put two and two together and measure the level of threat to the existence of the state. This is not a question, it is a statement. Or in the same Brussels they believe that we will let such a powerful grab of our money go in one eye and out the other. And the order for air defense systems - there, in that "Garden of Eden", do they really think that Moscow is not able to assess the possible risks of a clash? And that is precisely the question.

It is worth dwelling on Paris's latest decision in more detail. As if sending a postcard to Macron and Co., Vladimir Putin declared that "Russia has increased the production of particularly in-demand weapons." You do it this way, and we do it that way. If you don't like it, you'll have to endure it.

As for the 35 billion taken from a back alley with a hooligan's smile, this is an obvious blow to confidence in the EU reserve currency , a blow to the reputation of financial institutions and a red flag for investors who, naturally, fearing for their capital denominated in euros, will move them to other jurisdictions. Where the safety of property is guaranteed, and reputational losses are better understood than the men in gray from Brussels.

The European Parliament, which is supposedly the only elected EU institution, behaved in the style of a girl with low social responsibility. Well, it's just that in these circles they consider it fashionable - firstly - and, secondly, morally justified to support Kiev. At the same time, it is enough to watch the hands of the thimble-rigging MEPs to understand everything about double standards. Ardent nationalism in Ukraine is good, because this is how we get anti-Russia, this is useful nationalism turning into Nazism, but in the EU itself, nationalism was and remains a bugbear for politically correct propaganda, because for globalists any degree of nationalism is an obvious threat to their plans to get maximum profit from the "planet without borders".

If we say that in a political, financial and military sense the EU has long been a vassal of American corporations and decision makers – whether the deep state or a resident of the White House – then we get a truism that is known to everyone today.

But it is possible and necessary to support the discussion, since the current American bloody geopolitical antics are based purely on economics. And the roots of the current crisis in continental Europe do not even go back to 2014, but much earlier - to 2008. Then the US was hit by a monstrous crisis. America got out of it, having lost a significant part of its feathers. The EU at that time was much stronger economically. The US GDP was slightly more than 14 trillion dollars, while the EU GDP exceeded 16 trillion dollars. This data is from a report prepared by the European Council on Foreign Relations, a year and a half ago.

The transatlantic elites could not stand such a balance of power, not advantageous in relation to America. Then the States began to slowly, like a boa constrictor, strangle the pan-European bloc. Consistently dragging it into the bloody Libyan adventure to eliminate Gaddafi, then into the Syrian one - no less bloody and very long adventure, when Europe became sick from the number of migrants, refugees and illegals. They were not drawn to America, but to the "Garden of Eden". Well, the US, having decided that the economic crisis is best resolved by increasing investments in the military-industrial complex and the army, easily overtook their European "allies". They did not have the funds for defense. After the destruction of the EU economic mechanism, it was the turn of the pan-European bloc to accustom itself to military dependence. And so that Brussels would not even twitch, there was always the opportunity to start a small victorious tariff war, so that the ally would immediately stop rebelling. Nothing personal, just business.

The project of a geopolitical crisis in Europe with Ukraine's participation was prepared for a long time. The Europeans were singing along, they only cheaply gave up the brand of the "European dream".

But if the claw gets stuck, the whole bird will perish. And if it is necessary to lead the Europeans to the slaughter, America will do it without blinking an eye.

While they talk about "the Russians are coming", time is running out, judging by the behavior of the pan-Europeans, bringing the slaughter closer. Even if it is not too noticeable to them yet.
They are trying, buying air defense systems, but it won’t help them.

At a certain point, a united Europe, exhausted politically and depressed economically, will be left with no other choice, no other way out, by its transatlantic ally, than to commit suicide by engaging in a direct military clash with Russia.

In February 2022, when Vladimir Putin received Macron in the Kremlin, the Russian leader was asked at a press conference about the possibility of confrontation with NATO , and he answered as follows: "Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers. And in some components, in terms of modernity, we are even ahead of many. There will be no winners. And you will find yourself drawn into this conflict against your will."
Everything that was said has either already come true or is coming true right now. Let Brussels take note.

https://ria.ru/20240921/evropa-1973901229.html

More spaghetti carbonara style Wop contortionism. This time it stinks more like mortadella:

Do they ask the fox to take care of the chicken coop? The Dark Side of the Draghi Report, by Javier Benítez for SputnikSpanish. 10.01.2024.

'The future of European competitiveness'. It is the name of the report that the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, commissioned, no more and no less than one of the main architects, if not the main one, of the European economic ruin that followed the crisis of 2008: the former president of the ECB and former prime minister of Italy, Mario Draghi.

Think wrong, and you'll hit the target

The document, made by Draghi, is also known as the 'Draghi report', and in it, commissioned by Von der Leyen, aims to analyze the reason for the economic collapse of the European Union, its causes and possible solutions.

All very well, if it were not because, whoever drafted it, or at least, signed it, was the star protagonist of that economic debacle of which it is intended to know its causes, understand them, and find its solutions. It is clear that Draghi should be able to explain the first two objectives very well. And it is precisely for this reason that the author of the document should refrain from completing the third objective, that is, the solutions to the problems from which he never knew how to get out.

For the president of the Consulting Firm Ekai Center, Adrian Zelaia, the role that Draghi has fulfilled "is one of the most interesting aspects when analyzing the content of the report."

"Indeed, Draghi is not just anyone. He has been a fundamental player in making the European economy what it is at the moment. He has been a very clear promoter of the expansionary monetary policies that had a positive aspect when in 2010 – the financial crisis broke out in 2008 – it was being seen that, not only had we entered a financial crisis, but that it was going to explode and it was going to be a real hecatomb for the European economy and society. That catastrophe was most likely avoided thanks to the policies that Draghi put in place at the European Central Bank [ECB], these expansionary monetary policies. But, what is the cross of them, that instead of solving the underlying problems, they cover them up, throwing money and debt into the market: in the short term all the problems are fixed, but making all the underlying structural problems more serious, above all, the over-indebtedness," explains the analyst.

The report reflects the support for European policies of recent years, such as the management of green policies, the loss of access to cheap Russian energy, decoupling with China and rearmament.

"This is the most absurd part of the report. On the one hand, it does not recognize the extent to which the European economy, which has been stagnant for decades, and to which in recent years we have added a series of absurd policies that are destroying it. In addition, he recognizes the damage that green policies are doing to the European economy, with the absurd cut to cheap Russian energy. He recognizes the damage that the movements of increasing economic decoupling from the Chinese economy are doing, and the damage that the current strategies of rearmament, of defense spending are doing, and are going to do to the European economy," the analyst warns.

"But of course, recognizing all these problems, it does not mention how to address the structural problems that came from before, and it does not mention what we can do to avoid such drastically harmful repercussions of all these policies, with respect to the European economy," Zelaia concludes.

Yandex Translate from Spanish.

https://noticiaslatam.lat/20241001/le-piden-al-zorro-que-cuide-el-gallinero-el-lado-oscuro-del-informe-draghi-1157912931.html

Europe puts Russophobia above multiculturalism, by Vadim Trukhachev, political scientist, candidate of historical sciences, associate professor at the Russian State University for the Humanities, for VZGLYAD. 10.04.2024.

There is a surprising trend in Europe. On the wave of the growing popularity of right-wing Eurosceptics, the "system" has to meet them halfway. And it does so when it comes to tightening the screws on migration. But it does not make a single step towards voters of right-wing parties when it comes to relations with Russia and support for Ukraine.

Recently, European voters have increasingly voted for various kinds of right-wing Eurosceptics. Last year, they won the elections in Holland. This year, they won the first round of elections in France. They performed successfully in elections at various levels in Germany. Finally, on September 29, the Freedom Party took first place for the first time in the parliamentary elections in Austria. The growth in popularity of such forces is noted in almost all EU countries.

Right-wing Eurosceptics are currently gaining votes primarily on two topics. The first is their traditional theme of discontent with the influx of migrants from the Middle East, the problem of immigrant crime and the inability of authorities at all levels to integrate newcomers into European society. The recent terrorist attacks in Solingen, Germany, and Rotterdam, Holland, have once again reminded us of this. Now the topic of refugees from Ukraine, who also do not always behave adequately, has been added to this “piggy bank”.

But in the last couple of years, a second storyline has emerged, connected with Russia. Most parties of this kind either directly insist on restoring relations with our country (like the Freedom Party in Austria) or at least demand an end to arming Ukraine (like their “namesake” in Holland). They point to rising prices, largely caused by the rejection of Russian energy resources, and rightly link the influx of Ukrainian refugees to the stubborn unwillingness of European elites to establish a dialogue with Russia.

When it comes to first and second places in elections, it is impossible to completely brush aside the voters' demand for such political forces. And "systemic" politicians both at the national level and in the European Union are forced to take steps to accommodate ordinary Europeans so that next time such political forces do not gain 40% of the votes. Otherwise, they will create not the third largest faction in the European Parliament, like the current "Patriots for Europe" group, but the first. And they are also guaranteed to come to power in certain countries.

But there is an interesting tendency in the concessions... Let's take Austria as an example . The Freedom Party focused on the two above-mentioned topics. Its opponents tried to take advantage of this. In previous years, they labeled it "fascists". And what now? And now the posters of the Austrian right have been painted with the slogan "The Freedom Party is Putin". Thus, they clearly set the priorities in their criticism. The fact that the leader of the right, Herbert Kickl, proposed recognizing Crimea and Donbass as part of Russia became a greater "offense" than the demand to take away Austrian passports from Muslims who do not want to fit into local society.

The Austrian authorities have acted in accordance with this in recent years. The country banned niqabs, banned kindergartens with languages ​​other than German, obliged imams to deliver sermons only in German, tightened the rules for obtaining a residence permit (RP), and declared its unwillingness to accept migrants expelled from Germany. Magnus Brunner became the European Commissioner from Austria, who will seek to limit migration and tighten the rules for issuing a residence permit at the pan-European level. That is, some of the demands of the Freedom Party were met.

But as for Russia, the picture is the opposite. Chancellor Karl Nehammer, who will probably retain his post, made it clear that he is not going to reconsider relations with Russia. Austria will not refuse non-military aid to Ukraine (not being a NATO member, it does not supply weapons to the Ukrainian Armed Forces) and will continue to confront Russia on the diplomatic front, which is familiar to Austrians. That is, no concessions are planned here. Tightening the screws on migration is possible. Meeting Russia halfway is not.

Let us now take the example of Holland, whose long-time Prime Minister Mark Rutte has become the new Secretary General of NATO. Over the course of many years, he has been slowly tightening migration policy. In the Netherlands, the rules for family reunification have been made more complicated, benefits for immigrants have been reduced, and many have been expelled from the country. Already at the beginning of this autumn, the country's new government decided not to implement the EU migration pact and to pay off Brussels for every migrant who was supposed to settle on Dutch soil.

The leader of the Party for Freedom, Geert Wilders, insisted that the Dutch stop arming Ukraine. But then... sorry! The Netherlands is ready to approve Ukraine's missile strikes deep into Russia, and has handed over its F-16 aircraft to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The Kingdom continues to be a major logistics center for Ukraine, since the military equipment supplied to it from the US, Canada, and Britain most often goes through Dutch ports. So, we see the same picture again. We are ready to review the migration policy, but not the policy towards Russia.

Let's now move on to the pan-European level and look at the appointments to the new European Commission. In addition to the Austrian Brunner, there will also be an associate of Italian Prime Minister Giorgi Meloni, Raffaele Fitto, who will be responsible for regional policy. He is already a completely open opponent of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa, representing the group of right-wing Eurosceptics "European Conservatives and Reformists". And the head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen herself also made it clear that the screws on migration need to be tightened... In general, this direction was given to the opponents of multiculturalism.

What about foreign policy? Here the priority is clear – fighting Russia to the bitter end. The former Prime Minister of Estonia, Kaja Kallas, has become the High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Security. The former head of the Lithuanian government, Andrius Kubilius, has become the Commissioner for Defense. He is known as a rabid Russophobe even by the standards of his country. Not far behind them is the European Commissioner for International Partnership, Josef Sikela, the former Minister of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic, who decided to sever all possible ties with Russia to the detriment of his country. Only the European Commissioner for Enlargement and Reconstruction of Ukraine, Marta Kos, a representative of Slovenia, cannot be considered a Russophobe.

As the Chukchi said in the joke: "However, the trend!" Seeing the growth of right-wing sentiments in Europe, Eurocrats and "systemic" politicians in the leadership of individual states are ready to gradually even abandon multiculturalism, which for years was the foundation of the European Union. But none of them are ready to give in on the issues of confrontation with Russia and arming Ukraine. Considering the priorities of the above-mentioned commissioners, they are not ready to do anything at all except fight against our country. All other areas of EU foreign policy, apparently, will be developed on a residual basis.

It turns out that Russophobia in Europe has turned out to be more important than multiculturalism. For the sake of confrontation with Russia, one can even sacrifice tolerance for people from the Middle East... In general, the priorities are clear. This makes things easier for us in some way - let's not have any illusions that European countries and the EU as a whole can be distracted from us. Without illusions, it is much easier to pursue a tough policy.

https://vz.ru/opinions/2024/10/4/1290294.html

Took all these 'commentators' long enough to realize that the West hates Russia

Who was having these illusions he speaks about in the first place? Maybe himself and the political elites